Mechanisms of Monument-Destruction in Nineteenth-century Ireland.

7/28/2019 Mechanisms of Monument-Destruction in Nineteenth-century Ireland.

1/20

Mechanisms of monument-destruction in nineteenth-century Ireland: antiquarian horroCromwell and gold-dreamingAuthor(s): Mirn N CheallaighSource: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies,History, Linguistics, Literature, Vol. 107C (2007), pp. 127-145Published by: Royal Irish AcademyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40657901 .

Accessed: 17/10/2011 18:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide ran

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=riahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40657901?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40657901?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ria


2/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenthcenturyreland:ntiquarianorror,romwellndgold-dreamingMirn Ni Cheallaigh*Arch-Tech,rchaeologicalechnologytd, 2 Fitzwilliamlace,Dublin[Accepted April 006. Published 8 June 007.]

Abstract Irish ntiquarianublicationsf the nineteenthenturyften hartedhe contem-porary estructionnd dissolution f archaeologicalmonumentshroughoutheisland f relandwith isapproval, elancholyr ndignation.nthis aper, arguethat he urvivalrotherwisefmonuments asrelated o heirerceivedole s con-tainersfmemory.hus, estructivectsmayhavereflectedhe oss ofmemories raccommodationsetweenompeting ays fattachingalueto monuments. hileforces peratingta broad ocial scalewerefrequentlylamed or his estructionit smy ontentionhatmechanismsacilitatingheremoval r alterationf monu-mentswere ncorporatednto hevarious elief ystemshat stensibly uaranteedtheirrotection.hesemechanismsncludedhe ranslationfmonumentsntomon-etary esources. heyalso included henegotiationfchangingocial,economicandpolitical nderstandingsincludingmodernity')hroughnteractionsith hephysical abric f sites.Introduction:archaeologists,memorynddestruction

In currentrchaeological istoriography,t srelativelyommonplaceo situate heestablishmentfarchaeologys a discipline,nd theemergencef itsempiricistmethods ndunderstandingsirmly ithin he ontext fnineteenth-centuryocialand ntellectualhanges Trigger994, 3-147).Thisprocesss ofteninkedoothercoincidenthenomenauch s Romanticism,heriseofnationalism,heformationofnation tates,olonialism nd the ccelerationf urbanismnd ndustrialisatio(seeAltick 999;Chastel 984-92;Diaz-AndreundChampion 996;Dietler 994;Jones1997;A.D. Smith 998, 1999a, 1999b).Present nderstandingsock all ofthephysical eatures hich recategoriseds archaeologicalmonumentsrobjectsintodetailed emporal,unctionalnd formalystemsntelligibleoarchaeologistand,ntheory,ranslatablento arrativesor opular onsumption.nthenineteenthcentury,hefabricf he inearscientific' istoricalime avouredy rchaeologists(to distinguishtudents fthepastsomewhatrtificiallyrom heiress empirical*Author's-mail:[email protected] based pon paper resentedt heIdentity,emorynd hemateriaworld'eminar,umanitiesnstitutef relandHII),UniversityollegeDublinUCD),convenednderhe uspicesf he epartmentfArchaeology,CD on27February004.

Proceedingsf heRoyal rishAcademy ol.107C,127-145 2007Royal rishAcademy


3/20

MirnNiCheallaighcounterpartsarliern thecentury) as, in Ireland s elsewhere,iecedtogetherusing ragmentarynd ontestedcraps fhistoricalnformationnd nthropologicaanalogy.t was stilldisjointed,ncompletendunravellingt itsbiblically efinededges nto he lmostnconceivableengthfgeological imesee The rishNationalMagazine ndWeeklyournal fLiterature846;Rudwick 992,1-26).Such inear emporaltructuresended ocreate viewthat rchaeologicalsites ndmonumentsad together ith henarrativesenerated ythem coher-ent eginnings, iddles ndends.Thesenarratives,nd nsome nstanceshemonu-mentshemselvesould, ccordingothe ractitionersf he eterminedlympiricalarchaeologyfthe ater ineteenthentury,e reconstructednd woven ntowidersocialunderstandings.hiswas achieved y ystematicallyraftinghysical escrip-tions f ntiquitiesntomore r ess detailed istoricalesearch.notherwords,helife tages fmonumentsouldbebroughto the ttentionfcontemporaryocietybyhybridisingecords f their hysical imensionsoranaide-mmoirefappear-ance)with xtractsrom hehistoricalecord. hisrecord,nturn,ontained uch fthe fficiallyanctioned emoryfnineteenth-centuryiteratereland.See Crooke2000,68-99;Doherty004, 193-210;Leerssen 994,68-156;Patten004;Trigger1994, 5-72.)Althoughhebeginningf a monument'sifewas frequentlyignified yassociationwith n historical ate andfiguretheactualtechnical rocessof itsmanufacture,s withmany ontemporaryirths,eingdecentlygnored),ts endwas often onceived s a moment fphysical estruction,fdissolution,hich adgreaterignificancehan he ontinuedxistencef ts uined emains. everthelessas Adrian orty aspointedut, tcan be arguedwith omereservations)hatTheWestern radition fmemoryincetheRenaissancehas beenfounded pontheassumptionhatmaterialbjects,whetheratural rartificialan actas analoguesof humanmemory'Forty001,2). Inthis ense, uins ngeneral endedobecon-templateds poeticremindersf the nevitableurningf the wheelof time ndfortune.

Forty oes on to assert hat It has beengenerallyakenforgrantedhatmemories,ormedn themind, anbe transferredosolid materialbjects,whichcan cometostand ormemoriesnd,byvirtue f their urability,ither rolong rpreservehem ndefinitelyeyond heir urelymental xistence'Forty 001, 2).Accordingothis nderstanding,he estructionf nantiquitynvolves ot nly hedissolutionf tsphysical abric.talso affectshememoryhat he ntiquitys con-sidered o evokeorpreserve.nthis ight,hefrequentlyeardmournfulament fthenineteenth-centuryrchaeologistrantiquarianorost ntiquitiess unsurpris-ing, articularlys thevarious hreads f nationalmemory' erebeinghammeredout ndnegotiatedetween ifferentndsometimespposing roups.

Antiquarianaccounts fdestroyedantiquitiesSuch aments ontinuedoproliferateespitehepopular uratorshipfmonuments(ofteninked o the ctions f supernaturalgencies) nddespite he onservationist effortsfantiquarianandlords nd various nterestedobbyists.he frequentaccounts fdeliberater ncidentalestructionfmonumentsntheournals fvari-ous earned ocietieserve opaint picturef nsidious,ontinuousndwidespread

128


4/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenth-centuryrelanddestructionf monumentsnan island- ide scale.However,hat his rocessmayhavebeen xaggeratedsperhapsndicatedy he ery argenumbersfmonumentthat ave urvivednto he resent ay. his xaggeration ay,npart, ave temmedfrom hefact hat ntiquariansadbydefinitionheightenedwareness f thepastand t ouldbearguednequally eightenederceptionf he ragilityf ts emains(Gazin-SchwartzndHoltorf999,7).Someantiquarianccounts o,however,raphicallyllustratehe destruc-tionvisited pona widerange fmonuments.n the ate1830s,for xample, heReverend aesarOtway resented paper nIrish cclesiastical ites o theRoyalIrishAcademyn which e:

called the attention f theAcademyto the rapiddemolition f theseinterestingtructuresy hepeople,whomake hem lacesof common ndmuch rized epulture,nd desiringo mark heplaceswhere heir riendsareburied) ecklesslyear own he uoins, orbellssic], apitals fpillars,and ll the laborate rnamentsheyan ay heir and n, nordero answerthepurpose fhead stones. (Otway1836-40,210)In 1854theKerry ntiquarian,ichard itchcock,omparedhe ontemporarytateof theruined ower-housenCamp,Co. Kerry, ith hedescriptionf it thathadappearednLewis'sTopographicalirectorywenty ears arlier. e concludedhattheremains ere nall likelihoodmore scatterednd reduced ofragments'nthe1850sthan hey adpreviouslyeen Hitchcock 854-5a,350). As thenineteentcentury rogressed,nddespite hangingrchaeological nderstandingsnd atti-tudes owards heconservationfantiquities,nstances nddescriptionsf monu-ment estructionontinuedo be recorded.Two such accounts elate o antiquitiesn the rea ofButtevant,o. Cork,writtenyRobert rash nthe arly1850s Brash1852-3,272). In the econdofthese, rash hronicled ot nly hedestructionfvarious ocalmonuments,ut lsothephenomena hichwere nderstoodo havecaused heir estruction.ne of themonumentsnquestionwasthe umulus fKilmaclenine, hich ay approximateltwomilesfrom he own.n this ccount,he lderlymanwhomBrashhadengagedas a guide oras a 'cicerone' ouse Brash's erm)stated hat e rememberedthemound]nhisyoungerays omplete, ith moat n the op.The moatheexplainedas having een a flat reenittle ield".Brashwent n to recordhat isguidehad toldhim hat hemound ad beenopened ifteenears arliery theRev.Mr.Connery,arish riest fButtevant,hoinformedhe eople hat e firsteard f t nParis'Brash 852-3, 72).Having atheungraciouslybservedhat is lderlyompanion as completelygnorant'fwhat hestructureay ave ontained,rash uggestedhat he eature as mostikely 'sepul-chral'monument.his lassificationas based n hisrecognitionfthe tone tructurexposed y hemoundtrippings a 'rude ist' frectangularhape. fterhe nitialis-turbancef hemound yFrConnery,rash ecordedhatthe old-seekersame . ],and xcavatedndransackedhewholemound'n heiruest or reasure,o that y he1850s he ocalfarmers erecartingway hematerialsfwhicht was] omposed'.

129


5/20

MirnNiCheallagh

Monumentshatparticipatedntheirown inevitable'dissolution

Brash lso recordedhedisturbancend destructionfpart f hegraveyardof theAugustinianrioryfBallybegnearButtevant.his destructionasreport-edly arried utby grave-robbinglacksmith:whodreamedhree uccessive ightsf a crock fgold n bigflag nder heabbey,'ndwho ccordinglyommencedxcavatingmong hemoulderingremains fthe ncient athersntil e exhumed stone offin,ontainingskeleton, cross, bead of thepreciousmetal, nd a plateofthe ame, nwhichwas incised representationf thecrucifixion.hese valuablesmetthe fate f most f our native ntiquities, aving eendisposed fbythefindero a goldsmithnCork,whoremorselesslyelted hem own.(Brash1852-3,271)

The ettersftheOrdnanceurvey'sopographicalepartmentnthe1830sand 1840s also contain umerous eferencesothedestructionf monumentsndof the memories ndunderstandingsttached o them. his loss ofmemorylsoincluded hepeteringut of thepopular eligious bservances hatwere pplied oecclesiasticalnd other eatures.tmight e argued, owever,hat hesememorieshadbeen llowed o fade s theyandas a result hemonumentsnwhich heywereembodied)became ess central o contemporaryeligious ractice nd to popu-lar celebrationsNaughton 003, 21-2, 33; Giollin1998, 202, 214-17). Thisprocess ed to the bandonmentndoccasional ilting-upfholywells andto thedeclineof memories f medieval arishpatron aints ausing hededicationsfmany ld churches o be forgotten.lthough e regrettedheremoval f monu-ments ndexpressed half-desperatententiono isten oanypopular torieshatmight rovidenformationn their onstructionndpastuse (O'Flanagan1931,vol. 1,67), John 'Donovan ofthe Ordnance urveyisted hephysical emovalofmonumentsn a relativelymatter-of-factanner. e occasionally as in thecase ofthemedieval arish hurch fDonaghmore,o.Wexford,ecordedn1840(O'Flanagan 927a, ol.1,26) phrasedhis hysicalemovals thedisappearanceofantiquities.This dea of disappearance's employedyO'Donovan s worthyffurtheron-sideration,articularlys he is consideredo be one of the foundingathers' fcontemporaryrish rchaeology.tsuggestshe ilent nd unobtrusiveadingwayofphysicalubstance, process hat ccurred,erhaps,utside he weepor attheedgesof collectivettention.y using he ermdisappearance', e mplies hat heantiquityas nvolvedrcomplicitn, ts wnphysicalemoval.gnoringateregis-lative pproacheso theprotectionf monumentshat eemed opersonify onu-mentsna similar ay o humanegalminors,uch n attitudean be understoodoanthropomorphisehese tructuresonstructedypastpeople seealso O'Donovanspersonificationftheholywellknown sTobernagreaghta,ilteevan, o. Roscom-mon O'Flanagan1931,vol.1,53)).Thedisappearancefthechurch tDonaghmoremight e likened o thewilful elocationsf the egendaryhurchesf founderaints,whichmiraculously

130


6/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenth-centuryrelandmoved vernightromnauspiciousituationsopreferredites, ftenwhile till nthe rocess fbeing onstructed,s occurredtClonlea,Co. Clare Westropp,003).Theidea ofdisappearances also atvariancewith heconcept f deliberateemo-lition, fthe ct ofstandingn front f an object hat t thevery eastwas knownto have withstoodhe force f timefor ong periods, ndplanningndexecutingitsphysical estruction.lthough ohn Donovanundoubtedlysed the ermnathrow-awayashiont an be seen o have cted s a form feuphemismhat atural-ised andblurred he ctive rconscious oleof ndividualsn the hurch'shysicaldestruction.As David Lowenthal as observedcultural rejudice ...] affects hat spreserved,hat s sufferedovanish, ndwhat s deliberatelyestroyed'Kearns1982,273). In the ase ofDonaghmore hurch,heoriginal uildingdisappearedinorder o accommodatea modern rotestanthurch'whichhadalready ythetime fwritingallennto isuse O'Flanagan1927a,vol. 1,26).Any otentialaluethat he hurchmayhavehad as a historicaltructure,r as a generatorfspecificmemories as at somepoint ntheearlynineteenthentury eighed gainst, nddeemed obe essthan,heneed o ccommodatemodernandperhaps umericalloverestimated)hurch-goingongregation.t s unclearwhetherhe elebrationfpatronaint's ay, rpattern,hichhad occurredt the hurch ntil pproximatel1820,was affectedythe constructionf the newchurch;whetherheconstructionwas instead acilitatedythe easing f thepatternorndependenteasons, rwhetherhe ld church asregarded ith ndifferencey ocalpeopleforwhom heact ofrememberingheir atronaintwasconceptuallyivorced rom hebuilding'sphysical abric. y 1840thememoryfthis aintwas nolongermaintainednd thepracticefthepatternad also ceased.Destruction,emightrgue, eems n this nstanceo havebeen nevitablefollowingn the wakeof a changeofmeaning hat enderedhe remains f thechurchmore r less obsolete. n theface of suchchange, eoplemayhavehelp-lessly hruggedheir houldersefore ettingn with heir aily ives. nexplainingthenineteenth-centuryestructionfmonuments,heforces f gnorance,nd therollingndfine-grindingheelsofprogressrefrequentlyvoked. hese includea rangeof economic nd social forces uch as those outlined yGillianSmithwhich ncorporateduncontrolledopulation rowth, philistine entry,ncreas-ing anglicisation,heexpansion f central overnment,he rise of a hegemonicand ultramontaneatholic hurch nsympathetico traditionaleligion,nd otherfactorsctive nthefirst alfofthecentury'G. Smith1999, 171).Thisexplan-ation,while ontainingmuchvaluable nd accurate nalysis, oes, however,endto de-personalise'estruction.t removeshe ndividual ctor rom,nd simultaneouslyhomogenises,he ctof destructionytracingtsorigin o a widerange fquasi-naturalorces cting t a broad ocial ornational cale. t also ina similarfashion o O'Donovan'suse of the ermdisappearance' removesny uggestionofforethoughtr deliberation rom heremoval fantiquities,nd filters utanyuncomfortableints f deliberateconoclasm raggression. s a result, emightconceive hat eopleofevery ocial class could blame the vanishing' fantiqui-tieson external actors, hile imultaneouslygnoringnypersonal omplicityndestructivects.

131


7/20

MirnNiCheallaighCromwell,old-dreamingndpolitics stransformativemechanisms

Inthis ontext, 'Donovan'suse of the ermdisappearance'egardinghedestruc-tion f monumentighlightsphenomenonhatwaswidespread,lthougheldomexplicitlyrticulated,n theovertly political ntiquarianccounts f nineteenthcenturyreland. his was theprovisionfmechanismst various evelsofsocietyandrelatingo differentorms fantiquityhat llowed or hetransformationnddestructionf monumentsrovidedhoseprocesseswere ontrolled ithin ertainparametersnd ustifiednparticular ays.At a regional r national evel,theunpredictableolitical onsequencesassociatedwith he deliberate estructionr reclamationf antiquities y oppos-inggroupswerecontrolledy antiquarianshroughheir eterminedlyobjective'andheavily diteddescriptiverameworks.xamples f such occurrencesncludethedeliberate ectarian loughingverof theburied emains fmedievalmonks(O'Flanagan1927b,19),and the plittingndholdingo ransom f anogham tone(Fig. 1) recovereduringhe evellingf an earthenmound y Kilkenny orkmen(Prim 1852-3).At a local level,regardlessf theprinted isapprovalf native rvisitingntiquarians,he ontraventionf societal abooswhich orbademonumentdestructionor ersonal ain r n he ursuitf ndividualeliefs eems ohavebeenfrequentlylossedover.Wheremembersf themiddle-classesngagedndestruc-tive cts, heywereunderstoodo have beengovernedy ndifferenceather hanbyhostility,hile ignificantlterationsomonuments ereproposed s inevitablechanges r as progress atherhan s iconoclasm. he loss ofmonuments, ight,underhese onditions,eproposeds a cause for egretutnotnecessarilyor nygreat orrow,assion r resentment.In this ontext,hedamage o the facialfeatures f thesculpturedigure,thoughtorepresent ingFelimO Conor, n a tomb n Roscommon bbey Fig.2) might e considered.nthe ate 1860s twas recordedhat hey ad beenobliter-ated t some arlier oint y a parcel f drunkenragoons'who were lso believedto have wrenched hehead from hetorsoO'Gorman1864-6,547). It is perhaps

Fig.1 Wood ut/engravingntitledOghammonumentoundn a rath t Dunbel sic],Co. ofKilkenny'. eproducedfrom .G.A. rim,On the iscoveryf ghammonumentsnd therntiquitiesn he athfDunbel sic],Co. ofKilkenny',Journalf heRoyal ocietyfAntiquaries (1854-5),betweenp.404-5.132


8/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenth-centuryreland

Fig. Woodut/engravingntitledMonumentfKing elim 'Connorsic]nRoscommonbbey'. eproducedromT.O'Gorman,Some emarksnO'Connor'ssic] omb tRoscommon',ournalf heRoyal ocietyfAntiquariesfIreland 1866), acing.546.

significanthat homasO'Gorman, he uthor f he ccount, eglectedospeculateonwhy he ombmayhavebeen thefocus f theirggression.t s also interestinthat e dentifiedhe omb sworthyf venerationot olely s part fthe videnceused ndebates ver henature f the militaryostume' f themedievalrish, utalsobecause of thepresumptionhat t once covered hemortal emains,nd stillrecalled] thememory' fwhathe termedone of our native rinces'O'Gorman1864-6, 48).Whilenot xplicitlyrticulatinghis elief, 'Gormanmayhavebeenimplyinghat hedamagedone to thismonument ight e interpretedotsolelyas an act of drunkenandalism,ut also as a deliberate ct ofdisrespect erpet-rated n anobject fpotentialmportanceo anopposing roupHarrison 994-5;O'Flanagan1934, 3).Within his ramework,he eviled iguref OliverCromwell

133


9/20

MirnNiCheallaighwas frequentlyvoked s oneoftheprimary opular espoilers f Irish andandantiquities.Smith lso pointed utthe rony f the fact hatwhile hemid-nineteentcenturyopographicalepartmentftheOrdnance urveycondemnedhedestruc-tion' f reland'sntiquities,therewere eportsrom ll over he ountry'hat heirmilitaryolleagues f heRoyal ngineers ad damaged ites ndmonumentshilemappinghe and' G. Smith 999, 158;J.Graves1849-5 a, 145; 1849-51b, 90).Itmight e only slighttretchopropose hatnsome nstances,he ttributionfmonumentestructiono Cromwell ndhis soldiersmayhave temmed rom eiledexpressionsfdisapprovalf the avalier ttitudesfsomecontemporary ilitarymen owardsites hat ccupied rominentositionsn ocaltopographies.Whateverhe ossible ole f n magined romwellnfacilitatinghe ndir-ectexpressionf resentmentgainstheforcedpplicationf centralisedandscapeormilitaryolicies o ocalvalue-systems,t s ikelyhat romwell as also used sa shorthandymbol fpopular nderstandingsfhistoricallyecorded eventeenthcenturyestruction.he assertionhat astles, ower-housesnd ecclesiastical itesweredamaged rdestroyedycommand rbyaction f Cromwellwas frequentlymade norder oexplain heir uinationIFC SchoolsMS 505,9a-l la; Adams1904,vi;Gillman 892,14, 16-17;Gleeson1892,156;Fallow1894?, 5; O'Donovan ndO'Curry 997,12).Notonlywerehe and his soldiers redited ith oundingorti-fied tructuresith eavy rtillery,ut he ocations twhich hegunswere tationedandfromwhich annon-ballsained nvarious ntiquities ere lso often ointedout. nviewof hewide-rangingffectsfthe eventeenth-centuryars n reland,tis,therefore,ikelyhat portionf he toriesfCromwellianestructionoinfactpreservememories f actualhistoricalvents.It is interesting,owever,hatnineteenth-centuryntiquarianccounts fcastledestructionrequentlyentionhe ontemporaryctions fthosewho reatedsomemonumentss quarries,s in the ase of BallintoberorBallintubber)astle,Co. RoscommonFig. 3), where ccording o the thenO'Conor Don writingn1889:Thetraces f demolition... were]very vident. here, s inother uins,pillagersame for tones,s to a common uarry,nd, n thefirstnstance,generallyelected hose hatwere quared nd chiselled.(O'Conor 1889, 5)Theseobservations erepresentednconjunction ith he ssertion hat he astlehad beendestroyedas a habitable esidence,fter he ivilwarof 1641' O'Conor1889,25-6). Castles nd fortifiedtructures ere ikely o havebeenbroadlyon-ceived s secular tructuresmplicatednthe dministrationfpastpower. here-fore,heir uin ndabandonment,rcontinuedse,acted s visiblemarkersf thepassage, rretention,f that owernto henineteenthenturyPL I). As a result,the bsence f nfluentialivingnhabitantsayhave enderedastles fair ame'forthose esiringccessible uildingtone,nddaringnoughorisk he hosts,trangelightsnd other henomena ithwhich therwisemptyastleswerefrequentlye-populatedLeinsterxpress 898-1902,15-18;White 863, v). ndeed,n viewof

134


10/20


Fig.3 Woodcut/engravingntitledBallintubbersic]Castle,Co. Roscommon'. eproducedrom heO'ConorDon,'Ballintubbersic]Castle, o. Roscommon',ournalf heRoyal ociety fAntiquaries9 (1889), facing .24.

Pl. I PhotographntitledMashanaglasCastle'.Reproducedrom .W.Gillman,Castle-more nd Connected astles nMuskerry,o. Cork',Journal ftheCorkHistorical ndArchaeologicalociety, 12) (1892),p.233.

135


11/20

MirnNiCheallaightenacious ransmittedemoriesf theoccupationf castle uins ysocial outcastsandoutlaws,uch s themurderousobbers f Rathconnellastle,Co. Westmeathwhowere aid tohave hrownhebodiesof their ictimsnto henearby iverIFCSchools MS 737,270), theremoval f at least some of these tructuresayhaveappearedocially esirable.Cromwellmay,herefore,avebeen voked n order ohighlightimultane-ously he dea that astles nd ower-housesadbeen ffectivelykilled' everal en-turies arlier,nd also inorder o blamepasthistorical orces or astledemolitionratherhan ecognisinghis rocessn the ngoing uarryingfsurvivingtructurefor tone. voking romwellmay lso have erved s a convenient ayofphysic-ally ndmetaphoricallyrojectingheblamefor uchdestructionutside he om-munitynboth hepast nd thepresent. tBallintober,or xample, lthoughomelocal traditionsamedCromwells the eventeenth-centuryestroyerf thebawnof thecastle,O Donovan recordedhat hisdestructionhould nstead ave beenlaid at thedoorofRedHughO'Donnell,who fired pon hecastlewalls from henearby ill ofBallyfineganO'Flanagan1931,vol.2,45). Inthisway, hepotentialvalues ffragmentaryemainso differentroups as evidence fpastpower truc-tures,emindersf ost rish lory r ndicatorsf he ndemic iolence fpast rishsociety couldbe maintainedutbypassed.Moreover,oncentratingn anoriginalactofdestructionllowed llsubsequentissolutionfphysical abric obe renderedpart f gradual ndnatural rocess fdecay.Thismay lso havebeenfacilitatedythepreviously entionedendenciesof ocalpeople opoint ut he ites nnearbymountainsrconvenientigh roundfrom hich annon-balls ere iredGillman 892, 14, 16-17;Gleeson1892,156).Itmight e argued hat he pecificndphysicallyimitedmportancef ndividualcastles s distinctnddefinedlacesofhumanccupationnthe ast ouldbedilutedby shiftinghe ttentionf thevisitor r theviewer eyondtswalls to thedistantgeographicalocation rom hich estructionad come.Themeaningf the astleor towerwithints ettingmight herebye obscured y switchingbruptlyromcloseexaminationf ts eparate arts o a more iffuseontemplationf tsdestruc-tion s an act thatwasplayed ut cross hewider eographicalandscape.Inconsideringheoverthrowfmonuments,ntiquarians,owever,eldomlooked eyondhe ct ofremovingtones rsoil,preferringo maintainhe rguablyhistoricalnderstandingf monumentss tightlyefined hysical ntities hosemnemonic olewouldbe eroded oincident ith hedismantlingf their hysicalsubstance.t remains ossible,however,hat in a waysimilar o the venerationof smallfragmentsfholy bjects s relics theperceived olitical rominencersacred haracteristicsf monuments ayhave beencarried nfragmentsnd dis-persednto hewider ommunity.In theCorkaguinyillageofMoorestown,o. Kerry, or xample, largeportionf the ocal tower-housead at somepoint rior o themid-nineteenthen-tury eendismantled.ts stonewas, however,e-used o build fences nd cabinsin the mmediateicinityn such a waythatHitchcock1854-5b, 393) was ableto identifyheshaped tonefragmentsisible nmanywalls as parts fthe fab-ric of thedemolishedower-house.ne might resume hat heorigin f thesestoneswas likely o have been equally apparent o the local people who had

136


12/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenth-centuryrelandincorporatedhem nto hedomestic ndagriculturaltructuresfthe ommunityHitchcock1854-5a, 348-9) also recorded hat nDingle, MrsM'Donough sic]had retained otonly hememoryf,but also a sandstone lock from he tower-house tBallineanig,o. Kerry.hewas, s a result,ble toassert physical,s wellas a historicallaimupongentilitynd a higherocial status ased onher connec-tions'with dmiralMoriarty,he ate-eighteenthenturyccupant f hebuilding.Otway's ccount f there-use f decorated cclesiastical tone s grave-markersy ocalpeople Otway 836-40)might, erhaps, e interpretedna similarlight. uch uses might othave stemmed rom,s Otway mplied, he gnorantdestructionf stone ragmentshat ntiquariansndarchaeologistsaluedfor heirrole nrenderinguildingsrchitecturally,emporallyndhistoricallyegible.nstead,suchusesmighte interpreteds partiallyransferringlements f he restige,raftvalue ndperhapsacred haracterf church ragmentso thedeadperson ndper-haps,byextension,o the ommunity.hesepracticesmightlso have nvolved heassertionfpersonal wnershipf, ndcontrolver, cclesiastical uins yparticularlocal ineages ndkin-groups.nthis ontext,hefrequentmplicationf Cromwellinthedestructionfmonumentsasperhaps mechanismhat acilitatedhenego-tiationnd lterationf heirmnemonicalue. tmay lso havefacilitatedspirationtowards heretentionfpolitical ower t a local levelby physicallyispersingherelics f arlierower tructuresmongndividual embersf hewider ommunity

Gold-dreamingndthenegotiationfpersonalnrichmentThe dea that large roportionfdestructivects gainstntiquitiestemmedroma lackof properppreciationftheir istoricalas opposed o ntrinsic)aluewas,however,idely avouredcross ll evels f iterateocietyn henineteenthenturyMiddle-classntiquariansended o blamemostmonumentestructionna homo-geneouslyonceived ndoften old-seekingpeasantry', hileperhapsess vocifer-ously cknowledginghat uchdestructionasfrequentlyerpetratedythosewhodid not have the excuse' of a supposed ack of formal ducation.Hitchcock n1850,for xample, emarked hathe believed that t is not thepeasantry hoinjure rdestroyllthe nterestingemainshat reyearlybliteratedn reland' utthatPersonswhoought o knowbetter avea large hare n thebarbarous ork'(Hitchcock 849-51,186).This sperhaps orne ut nthe ase ofthe argenumbers fring-fortsis-tributedcross theentiresland.The 'peasantry', o matter owartificiallyon-ceived,were rguablymore ikelyopreservehan estroyhesemonuments,hichwere ftenhoughto be thehome fsupernaturalorces ndfairies.nanavowedlyutilitarianorld, owever,eitherroposedupernaturalorfairy rigins as ikelytoprotecting-fortsrom ragmaticallynclined r mprovingandlordsndifferenor hostile o themonumentsf a 'barbarian' ast.Fairy rigins ndassociationsinparticular ere ikely ohavebeen seenbysuch ndividualss expressionsfbackwardness,gnorancendsuperstition.omelandlords,enants ndprosperousfarmersngagednpracticesuch s thedraggingway f tones or se noutbuild-ings r othertructures,heploughingutof nconvenientarthenampartsocatedonprime griculturaland, r the emovalfarchaeologicaleposits ich norganicmaterial or se as manureC. Graves 850-3;G. Smith 999).

137


13/20

MirnNiCheallaighThose nvolvednsuchdestruction,rrespectivefcreed r ect, anbe seento havealigned hemselves ithnineteenth-centuryisions fmodernity,ith heprogressiveorces fscience,with deas ofutilityndmonetaryalue that ave ofrequentlyeen nvoked o ustifyheremoval f monumentsBourke1999, 1, 63;

Naughton003, 15,22).The destructionfring-forts,owever,nd the onsequentfading fmemoriesnd storieswhich heir hysical resencemight aveencour-agedcan be seen s a form ftopographicalmputationndcauterisation,ntendedto heal membersf he lower rders' een o be afflictedyblightingndregressivesuperstitionWilde1852,11).Thisprocess, owever, as seldommentionedn anti-quarian ccounts,lthough eaturingegularlynpopular arrativeshat ecordedhefearsomeupernaturalunishmentsikely o be meted ut o thosewhoengagednsuchbrutalurgeryIFC Schools969,45).Whilemembersf andowninglassesmaynothavebeen as innocentf thedeliberateestructionf monumentss theymight ave laimed,he o-calledpeas-antry' ere ot, s we have lreadyeen, ninvolvednthe emoval fmonumentsndotherntiquities.t s clear hat wide ange fpeople romhe ntirepectrumfruralsociety, ith nequalrange fpersonalr ocial gendasndestructiverocesses ereinvolved. his statementhould, owever,e qualified yonceagainhighlightinghemore r ess ctive urationfmonumentst ocal ndnationalevelswhich as n urnledtothe urvivalf he arge umbersfmonumentsn he ontemporaryandscape.Theprotectionfmonumentsue to a fear f upernaturaleprisals asnot,however,xclusive othe peasantry'.Middle-class rprosperousarmersfvary-ing religions,uch as ThomasCrofton roker'sdealised,maginaryom Bourke(Croker 825,105-18),were s likelyo havebeen s aware, nd as wary,f threatsof fairy unishments their ess affluenteighbours Duilearga1956,xi). Inpopular ccounts,hevengeancefthefairy ccupantsfdamaged ing-forts,r ofsaints utragedy he emovalftheirhurches, asoccasionallyo severe hat heperpetratorsereforced o leave notustthe ommunityut ometimeshe ntireisland.This was thefate, or xample, f themanwho builthimself house fromthe tones f StBrigid's hurchtKilbreedyearAdare, o. Limerick. fter uild-inghishouse,he was thereafterormentedy apparitionsnd strange appeningsto such degree hat e was forced oemigrateoEnglandIFC SchoolsMS 505,14a-15a).In this ontext, rash's ales, heblatant rave-robbingf theblacksmithofButtevant,r theravagingfKilmacleninemound y gold-seekersnapparentdefiancefpossible eprisals, ighteemparticularlyrazen.t sunlikelyneitherinstancehat hose ngagednquests or uriedwealthwere naware fthedangersoftamperingithmonumentshatwere nder he rotectionotustof he ommu-nity aze,but lso ofpowerfulupernaturalorces.tappears hat heir old-seekingwhile erhapsnathemao more rosperous iddle-classntiquarians,as to somedegree ecognisednd tolerated ithin ocal economieswhich cknowledgedhetemptationosedbythemonetarys well as themore soteric,ymbolic alue ofmonumentsO'Reilly1994-5,207). Itmighturthereargued hat ommunityis-approvalndassertionsfsupernaturalengeancemayhave focussedmore n theuncontrolledestructionf monumentsythosenotofthe ommunityatherhanon thedestructionfmonumentserse.For xample,his nderstandingppears o

138


14/20


Monumentdestructionndthetransgressionfsystemsfmeaning

haveunderpinnedxpressionsf ocal dissatisfactionhat ollowed hedestructionof a probable rehistoricing-barrown theKnox estatenearDungannonn theeighteenthenturyMolyneux 755, 184-5;G. Smith 999,167-8).Despitetheproblematic diting, ultural iases, literarynfluences ndpotential isunderstandingsnherentnnineteenth-centuryccounts ffolktalesndlegendsEarls1992-3;Hultin 987;Leerssen 994), alesofgold-dreamingnclud-ed inthem o resemble escriptionsncludedn later ollections f folklore. hephenomenonfgold-dreamings outlinednthese ccounts,ntailed n individualhavinghe amedream or hree ightsnsuccession,uring hich hedreamer astold fthe pecificocation fgoldor other aluables,nd was also toldhowtogoabout etrievinghem. ccasionallyonditions ere njoined pon hedreameruchastelling o oneof heir indfallndnot sing ny f he etrievedoldfor pecifiedperiods ftimeWilde1852,98).It seems,however,hatdespite heapparent se of gold-dreamings amechanismhat llowed he ransformationf monumentsromymbolico mon-etary esources,omeawareness f socialtransgressionnd ofcommunityutrageremained.n several ccounts old-dreamersere tated o have ravelledongdis-tancesfromheir omecommunitiesnorder o reach he ocations f which heyhad dreamed nd where heywouldhave a degree fanonymityIFC Schools MS781,1). nmany ases,those ngagedntreasure-huntingere nsuccessfulr weredriven rom herelevant itebya varietyfsupernatural anifestationsO'Reilly1994-5,202-5). This was often hecase evenwhere he seekerswerefortifiedywhiskeyndcompany,ndbytheapparentanction rovided y dreamingf thelocation fgold IFC SchoolsMS 595, 160-5,168,170).Thatbeing aid, lthoughthe nspirationf these dreamswas notusually tated, he ntercessionhroughdreams fsupernaturalorces ouldbroadly e seen to sanction subject o condi-tions ndthebraveryf the ndividual the emoval f otherwise ntouchableoldby heirppointedavouritesWilde1852,98).Gold-dreaming,y ssertinghathe ctions f he reasureeekers nvolvedhad been sanctionedythe upernaturalorceswhoguaranteedhe nviolabilityfmonuments, aynotonlyhave facilitatedhetransformationf the value attrib-uted o monumentsythe ocalcommunity.tmay lso have cted opreserveheiroriginal alue ndmeaning ymaintainingheirtatus s significantlacesof uper-naturalctivityndby framingheir hysical isturbance ithinhesystemshatpronouncedhem o be inviolable.nthisway, nd ike he nvocationf alternativideas ofpopularlyonceived istorical estruction,hebalancebetween hevaluesattached o thephysicalubstance f monumentsould be adjustednconcertwiththe adjustment'fthat abric.Failing o accommodateuch djustmentsndeuphemismsor estruction,r dis-regardinguch ontrols ould have serious onsequences ot nlyfor heperpetra-tor, ut or hemonumenttself.f monumentasdesecrated,f ts haredmeaningas a mnemonicmarker,s a liminal ndpotentiallyangerous ommunitypace(Bourke1999, 48-9, 163-5) was disregarded,tmight orfeit otonly ts valuebut lso theprotectionccorded o itby ocal society.While he otal emoval fa

139


15/20

MirnNiCheallaighmonumentid not lways uaranteehat t wouldbe forgotten,hedeliberaterans-gressionfthemechanisms hich ontrolledccess to tsphysicalubstance ftenledto tsobliterationr abandonment.It is ironic hat t was perhaps he nitial xcavation f the Kilmacleninemound ythe urious rConneryfButtevanthatedto ts ubsequentotal trip-ping Brash1852-3,272), as by assigningoit a meaninghat temmed rom ar-flungndcosmopolitanaris,he mayhavepublicly emovedtfrom tspositionwithinystemsf ocalunderstandings.notherwords,he nitial ct of desecration(forwhatevereason) an be seen to have ustifiedhe ubsequentemoval f theremainderf hemoundnmuch he ameway hat romwell's estructivectswereheld o ustifyhe ransformationfmonumentsnto heiromponent,ndmonetar-ilyvaluableparts. t is also perhapsronic, hat nthebroader ineteenth-centucontext rom hich rConneryrewhisunderstandings,nternationalpinionwasgraduallymoving owards he dea that emovinghe ccretions ndpatina fagefrommonumentsnd nterferingith heirhysical abricessened heir alue Bann1990;Haskell1993, 96-7, 303;Micara1997,55). Such lesseningn valuemight,insome nstances,eexpectedo essen heprotectionhatwasaccorded o them.Furthermore,n objector monument hathad been divorcedfrom tsoriginal et of understandings ightbecomedangerous hroughnappropriatuse. The rageof supernaturaluardians aced with vidence fdamageto siteswas one obviousway n which hedesecrated itemight ecomedangerous.t isfurtherossible, hatvisibledamageto ancientmonuments ight ct as a con-tinuous eminderf the ct of desecration rdestructionothoseviewing he iteafter he event. orexample, he destructionf urban nd rural ower-housesynineteenth-centuryandlordsmayhave been prompted y desiresto maximiseprofitnd to facilitaterogressHardiman 820,30), but an alsoperhaps e seenas attemptsoobliteratehe tilldangerous,ffractured,ymbols fpast politicalpower.In such nstances,hetotal bliterationfdamaged itesmight ave beena preferredption, atherhan eaving emains hatmightpur pposing roups oaction, r tovoicetheiresentments.heremonumentsere nthropomorphisedrpersonified,heymightven hoose oremove hemselvesromitesnwhichhey adexperiencedctions hatwould ompromisehemeaningsndvalues ttachedo hem.Irish olklore,or xample,boundswith alesofholywellswhichwerebelieved ohavemoved rom ne pot o notherfterheir aters ere sed n nappropriateays(Herity001,43; Crualaoich003,199;O'Flanagan1931, ol.1,53).These andmany therxamples f destruction ight e instances,oquoteDavidLowenthal, hereTo forgets as essential s tokeepthingsnmind, ornoindividualrcollectivityan affordo rememberverything'Lowenthal001,xi).He continues hat Collective blivion n theother and,s mainly eliberate,ur-poseful ndregulated.hereinies the rt fforgettingart s opposed oailment,choice rather han ompulsionrobligationsic]9. n this ontextand bearingnmind orty's oint bout he raditionalinks etweenmaterialbjects ndthe eten-tionofmemories), e canview thenineteenth-centuryestructionfmonumentin Ireland ess as a random rocess, utperhaps s an often urposefulemovalofobjectswhichhad losttheir alueandmeanings objectsofpower nd as the

140


16/20


Conclusion

generatorsfmemory.r toquoteJames entressnd ChrisWickham,The socialmeaningfmemory,ike ts nternaltructurend tsmodeoftransmission,s littleaffectedy ruth;ll thatmatterssthat tbebelieved,t east t some evel' Fentressand Wickham 992,xi). Ifmemorys no longer rue, nd its contents no longerbelieved,hen hephysicalbject ssociatedwith hat ow false'memorymighteremoved,estroyedrdiscarded.Where hen id this eavethenineteenth-centuryntiquarianr archaeolo-gist,whosepoint fview xplicitlyrohibitedhedestructionf nymonumenthatwas considered o be archaeologicaln nature?fnon-antiquariansllowed hem-selvesmechanismsherebyupposedlynviolatemonumentsouldbe altered r, nextremeases,removed,ow ould ntiquariansimultaneouslyecognisehe esultsof such lterations,hile tthe ame time voidinghe ensoryverload esultingfromotal ecall?tcouldbearguedhathe ircumscribedimit f he rchaeologist'sgaze and theconcentrationn describinghephysical ere nd now ofparticularmonumentsere ikely o have allowed ther ess noticeable r ess recognisable'monumentso be ignored. he ideaof therelativevalue' of different onumentswithinlosely efined iagnosticategoriesmightlsohave facilitatedheremovalof certainites n thebasis that heywere f imited rtisticchievement,istoricalprominence,r excellence f construction.oreover,hefrequenteliance nper-ceptionshat roposed estructions part fbroadernd oftenunstoppable'ocialphenomenauch s 'progress',modernisation,r ignorance' ould n some senseallow for heremoval fmonumentshich ayoutside hespheres fantiquarianinfluence.uchmechanismsould lsodisguise he eliance f rchaeologyn thosesamephenomena,s the tudynd nvestigationf monumentsften nvolvedheirphysical issolutionr he isplacementf raditionalarrativesn favour f ystemsof rchaeologicalnowledge.It spossible hat hese bservations ight e equally pplicable othepresentay,where heunderstandingsfarchaeologistsave nmanynstances ecome hepri-mary oolsbywhich heremains f thepastarepublicly nderstood.he conceptof arge ocial forces peratingeyond he ontrol f ndividuals tnational,nter-national rglobal evelsand the dea ofcreating urrogate aperversions f themnemonicnformationhoughtoinhere n monumentshroughxcavationmightstillrender atural hequiet disappearance' f features uch as the ll-fated ldchurch fDonaghmore. t the sametime, ociferous pposition o the destruc-tion r alterationf morehigh-profileites an be seen as a rearticulationfthoseargumentshat re heldto ustifyhe nviolabilityf sites ranging rom ersonalattachment,ational ignificance,egal protectiontc.). t can also be seen as anassertionhatn certain ases,for omepeople,thepossibilityfnegotiatinghedestructionfthe iteswithin heframeworkfprotectiveuaranteessnot een sanacceptable ption. hroughhese rguments,ndthe qually tronglyrticulatedcounter-argumentsf those n favour f facilitatinghe alterationr removal fsites, he rocesses overning onumentestructionn reland restill eingnego-tiatednways hat eflectome of thepreoccupationsnd beliefs fcontemporarIrish ociety.

141


17/20

MirnNiCheallaighAcknowledgementshispaperand the research ponwhich t is basedwere facilitatedy an IrishResearchCouncilfor heHumanities ndSocial Sciences IRCHSS) Governmenof reland ostgraduateesearch cholarship.he workwas furtherenderedos-siblebythe esearch acilitiesmade vailable o me nmy apacity s PostgraduateResearch cholar t theHII,UCD. I also wish oacknowledgehekind ermissionof heHead ofDepartment,epartmentf rish olklore, CD to citematerial romthe chools'Manuscriptollection eld nthe rchivesfthat epartment.References Adams, onstance . 1904 Castlesof reland: ome ortressistoriesnd egends.London. . Stock.Altick, ichard 1999 Nationalmonuments.n David Boswell and Jessica vans(eds),Representinghenation: reader, 40-57. London and New York.Routledge.Bann, tephen1990 The nventionsfhistory:ssays n therepresentationf hepast.Manchester. anchesterniversityress.Bourke, ngela 1999 TheburningfBridget leary: true tory.ondon. enguinBooks.Brash,Richard . 1852-3 Someantiquitiesn theneighbourhoodfButtevant,nthe ounty f Cork.Journal ftheRoyalSociety fAntiquaries f reland2,265-76.Chastel, ndr 1984-92 La notion upatrimoine.nPierreNora ed.),Les lieux emmoire7 vols),vol.2,405-50. Paris.Gallimard.Crooke, lizabeth 000Politics,rchaeologynd the reationf nationalmuseumin reland: n expressionfnationalife. ublin ndPortland,regon.rishAcademic ress.Croker,homasCrofton 825 Fairy egends ndtraditionsfthe outh f reland.Reprint.ork. he CollinsPress, 998.Diaz-Andreu,MargaritandChampion, imothy . (eds) 1996 Nationalism nd

archaeologynEurope. ondon.UniversityollegeLondonPress.Dietler,Michael 1994 'OurancestorsheGauls': archaeology,thnic ationalismand hemanipulationfCeltic dentityn modernurope.American nthro-pologist 6,584-605.Doherty,illianM. 2004 The rishOrdnance urvey: istory,ulturendmemoryDublin. ourCourts ress.Earls,Brian 1992-3 Supernaturalegends n nineteenth-centuryrishwritingBaloideas60-1, 93-144.Fallow, homasMcCall [1894?] The cathedral hurchesf reland:beingnotesmore specially n the maller nd less knownfthose hurches. ondonandDerby. emrose nd SonsLtd.Forty,drian2001 Introduction.n Adrian ortynd SusanneKchlereds),Theartof orgetting,-18. Oxford ndNewYork. ergPublishers td.Fentress, ames nd Wickham, hris 1992 Social memory. xford.BlackwellPress.Gazin-Schwartz,my ndHoltorf,ornelius1999 'As long s ever 've known t...': on folklore nd archaeology.nAmyGazin-Schwartznd Cornelius

142


18/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenth-centuryrelandHoltorfeds),Archaeologynd olklore,-25. London ndNewYork.Rout-ledge.Gillman, erbertWebb 1892 Carrignamuckastle,County ork.Journal ftheCork rchaeologicalnd Historical ociety (1), 11-19.Gleeson, imothy 892 Account fcastles, tc., ntheneighbourhoodf Castle-martyr.ournal f the CorkHistorical ndArchaeological ociety1(8),153-61.Graves, harles 1850-3 Presentationf n ancient ooden rucifix.roceedings ftheRoyal rishAcademy,43.Graves, ames 1849-5 a Account f theogham nscriptiontBallyboodan, earKnocktopher.ournal f theRoyal SocietyofAntiquaries f Ireland1,144-5.Graves, ames1 49-5 b Observationsn the xcavation f a earn tCloghmantyHill.Journalf heRoyal ociety fAntiquaries f reland1,289-94.Hardiman, ames 1975 Thehistory fthe own nd county f Galway, rom heearliest eriodto thepresent ime, mbellished ith everalengravingsTo whichs added,a copious ppendix, ontainingheprincipal hartersandother riginal ocuments.acsimile f 1820 edition.Galway.Kenny'sBookshopsndArtGalleries.Harrison, imon 1994-5 Fourtypes f symbolic onflict. ournal ftheRoyalAnthropologicalnstitute,ew eries, (2),255-72.Haskell, rancis 1993 Historynd ts mages: rt nd the nterpretationf he ast.NewHaven. aleUniversityress.Herity,Michael ed.) 2001 Ordnance urvey ettersMeath: letters ontaininginformationelative o theantiquities fthecounty fMeath collectedduringhe rogress f heOrdnance urveyn 1836.Dublin.FourMastersPress.Hitchcock, ichard1 49-51 Athcarne ay-sideross.Journalf heRoyal ocietyofAntiquariesf reland , 185-6.

Hitchcock, ichard 1854-5a The castlesofCorkaguiny,ountyfKerry. No. I.Journal f heRoyal ociety fAntiquariesf reland, 45-56.Hitchcock, ichard 1854-5b The castles fCorkaguiny,ountyfKerry. No. II.Journal f heRoyal ociety fAntiquaries f reland , 384-97.Hultin, .C. 1987 Belief nd nterpretationnT. Crofton roker's egends ftheLakes.Folklore8(i),65-79.Irish olklore ommissionIFC) nd SchoolsMS 505,9a-l la, 14a-15a.IFC SchoolsndMS 737,270.IFC SchoolsndMS 781,1.IFC Schoolsnd MS 595,160-70.Jones, in 1997 The rchaeology fethnicity:onstructingdentitiesn the astand the resent. ondon ndNewYork.Routledge.Kearns,KevinC. 1982 PreservationndtransformationfGeorgian ublin.TheGeographical eview 2(2),270-90.Leerssen, oep1994 Remembrancend magination:atternsnthehistoricalndliteraryepresentationf reland n thenineteenthentury.ritical ondi-tions. ieldDay Monographs. Cork.CorkUniversityress.

143


19/20

MirnNi CheallaighLeinster xpress 1899-1902 Someaccount ftheruinous cclesiasticaldifices,forts,astles,nd , with otes fmodern vents onnected ithheQueen'sCountyndcountyfKildare.Lowenthal,avid 2001 Preface.nAdrian ortyndSusanneKchlereds),Theartof orgetting,i-xiii.Oxford ndNewYork. ergPublisherstd.Micara, . 1997 Conservation:tsroots ndpresentay tatus.nThe onservator-restorer'srofessionalctivitynd status nd ts sic]responsibilityowardsthe ultural eritage. reprintsf theFirst .C.C.O. Conference eld nthePalazzodegliAffari,lorence,3-8. Rome.Grafica or .C.C.O.Molyneux,homas 1755AdiscourseoncerningheDanishmounts,ortsnd ow-ers n reland; ever efore ublished.nGerard oate,ThomasMolineux[sic] and otherseds),A natural istory f reland,nthree arts,part II,189-213.Dublin. rinted orGeo. andAlex.Ewing.Naughton, ora 2003 God and thegoodpeople:folk elief na traditionalom-munity.ealo deas71, 13-53.O'Conor,C. 1889 Ballintubbersic]Castle,County oscommon. ournal ftheRoyal ociety fAntiquariesf reland 9,24-30. Crualaoich, earid 2003 Thebook ftheCailleach: tories fthewise-womanhealer. ork.CorkUniversityress.O Donovan,John ndCurry, ugene 1997 Theantiquities f County lare. Let-ters ontainingnformationelative o the ntiquitiesfthe ounty fClarecollected uringhe rogress ftheOrdnance urveyn1839; and lettersand extractselative o ancient erritoriesnThomond,841.Ennis.ClaspPress. Duilearga, amus 1956 ntroduction.nSamus Duileargaed.), risholk-talescollected yJeremiah urtin1835-1905), x-xvi.Dublin. albot ress.O'Flanagan,Michael ed.) 1927a Letters ontainingnformationelative o theantiquitiesf he ounty fWexfordollected uringhe rogress f heOrd-nanceSurveyn1840 2 vols).Bray.O'Flanagan,Michael ed.) 1927b Letters ontainingnformationelative o theantiquities fthecounty f Donegal collected uring heprogress ftheOrdnance urveyn 1835.Bray.O'Flanagan,Michael ed.) 1931 Letters ontainingnformationelative o theantiquitiesf he ounty fRoscommonollected uringhe rogress f heOrdnance urveyn1837 2 vols).Bray.O'Flanagan,Michael ed.) 1934 Letters ontainingnformationelative o theantiquities fthecounty fCarlow collectedduring heprogress ftheOrdnance urveyn 1840.Bray. Giollin, iarmuid 1998 Thepattern.n James . DonnellyndKerbyA. Mill-er (eds), Irishpopularculture,650-1850,201-21. DublinandPortland,Oregon.rishAcademic ress td.O'Gorman, homas 1864-6 Someremarks nO'Connor's omb tRoscommon.Journal f heRoyal ociety fAntiquaries, 546-54.O'Reilly,Barry 1994-5 Nowyousee it,nowyoudon't: rish egends f buriedtreasure. aloideas62-3, 199-209.

144


20/20

Mechanismsfmonument-destructionnnineteenth-centuryrelandOtway, aesar 1836-40 Paper n theruinedbbeys ntheprovincefConnaughtProceedingsf heRoyal rishAcademy ,210-11Patten,ve 2004 SamuelFergusonnd the ulture fnineteenth-centuryreland.Dublin. ourCourts ress.Prim, ohn .A. 1 52-3 Noteson the xcavationf rath tDunbel sic], ountyfKilkenny.ournal f heRoyal ociety fAntiquariesf reland , 119-27.Rudwick,Martin .S. 1992 Scenes rom eeptime: arly ictorial epresentatioof he rehistoric orld. hicago ndLondon.UniversityfChicagoPress.Smith, nthony. 1998 The ethnic rigins fnations.OxfordndMaiden,Mas-sachusetts.lackwell ublishers.Smith, nthony. 1999a Historyndmodernity:eflectionsn the heoryf na-tionalism.n David Boswell and Jessica vans eds),Representinghena-tion: reader, 5-60. London ndNewYork.Routledge.Smith, nthony . 1999b Myths nd memoriesfthenation.Oxford.OxfordUniversityress.Smith,Gillian 1999 Spoliation f thepast:the destructionf monumentsndtreasure-huntingnnineteenth-centuryreland. eritia: ournalf heMedie-valAcademy f reland 3,134-72.The rishNationalMagazine ndWeeklyournalfLiterature,cience ndArt1 46Antiquityf the arth. (16 May 1846),12-13.Trigger,ruceG. 1994 A history f archaeological hought.ambridge. am-bridge niversityress.Westropp,. J. 2003 Folklore j Clare: a folkloreurvey j County lare andCounty larefolktalesndmyths.nnis.ClaspPress.White, ohn avis 1863 Cashelofthekings, eing historyfthe ity fCashel,compiledromcarcebooks ndoriginal ocuments.lonmel.Wilde,WilliamR. 1852 Irishpopularsuperstitions.ublinand London.JamesMcGlashan,William . Orr nd Co.

145

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tomas-o-brogain
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Mechanisms of Monument-Destruction in Nineteenth-century Ireland.

Documents